Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

Philosophy and Technology 35 (4):1-32 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Efforts to promote equitable public policy with algorithms appear to be fundamentally constrained by the “impossibility of fairness” (an incompatibility between mathematical definitions of fairness). This technical limitation raises a central question about algorithmic fairness: How can computer scientists and policymakers support equitable policy reforms with algorithms? In this article, I argue that promoting justice with algorithms requires reforming the methodology of algorithmic fairness. First, I diagnose the problems of the current methodology for algorithmic fairness, which I call “formal algorithmic fairness.” Because formal algorithmic fairness restricts analysis to isolated decision-making procedures, it leads to the impossibility of fairness and to models that exacerbate oppression despite appearing “fair.” Second, I draw on theories of substantive equality from law and philosophy to propose an alternative methodology, which I call “substantive algorithmic fairness.” Because substantive algorithmic fairness takes a more expansive scope of analysis, it enables an escape from the impossibility of fairness and provides a rigorous guide for alleviating injustice with algorithms. In sum, substantive algorithmic fairness presents a new direction for algorithmic fairness: away from formal mathematical models of “fair” decision-making and toward substantive evaluations of whether and how algorithms can promote justice in practice.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,075

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Moral Framework for Understanding of Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunity.Hoda Heidari - 2019 - Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 1.
Rawls’s Original Position and Algorithmic Fairness.Ulrik Franke - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1803-1817.
Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness.Pak-Hang Wong - 2020 - Philosophy and Technology 33 (2):225-244.
What's Fair about Individual Fairness?Will Fleisher - 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
On Fairness.Craig L. Carr - 2000 - Routledge.
On statistical criteria of algorithmic fairness.Brian Hedden - 2021 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 49 (2):209-231.
On algorithmic fairness in medical practice.Thomas Grote & Geoff Keeling - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (1):83-94.
On Fairness and Claims.Patrick Tomlin - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (2):200-213.
International Trade, Fairness, and Labour Migration.Alexia Herwig & Sylvie Loriaux - 2014 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 1 (2):289-313.
Measuring Fairness in an Unfair World.Jonathan Herington - 2020 - Proceedings of AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 2020:286-292.
Fairness and Aggregation.A. C. Paseau & Ben Saunders - 2015 - Utilitas 27 (4):460-469.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-10-08

Downloads
25 (#634,682)

6 months
10 (#270,763)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Egalitarianism and Algorithmic Fairness.Sune Holm - 2023 - Philosophy and Technology 36 (1):1-18.
Disambiguating Algorithmic Bias: From Neutrality to Justice.Elizabeth Edenberg & Alexandra Wood - 2023 - In Francesca Rossi, Sanmay Das, Jenny Davis, Kay Firth-Butterfield & Alex John (eds.), AIES '23: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 691-704.

Add more citations